Those who claim that it's more prestigeous, are just admiting that performance wise bigger heads are better.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who claims that using a smaller headsize is "more prestigious", myself included. Most people who use smaller racquets use them because they either play better with them or they just like the feel of them or some other characteristic of them. Prestige never even enters the equation.

Riiight. So going by that load of BS, there's probably something wrong with this positive review that Chris gave the classic POG OS http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/Reviews/GRO/GROReview.html & Agassi who was the first and only 1 of 2 male tennis players to ever achieve the career golden slam, should be ashamed of himself for playing with an OS.

Click to expand...

Yes, he should, Especially since even with his big 107 sq. in. racquet Agassi couldn't beat Sampras with his tiny 85 sq. in. racquet in ANY of the many, many times they played each other at the US Open and at Wimbledon. That's pretty shameful.

I don't know anyone who claims that using a smaller headsize is "more prestigious", myself included. Most people who use smaller racquets use them because they either play better with them or they just like the feel of them or some other characteristic of them. Prestige never even enters the equation.

Click to expand...

Prestige is what is at stake in the title of this tread.
The preference of a smaller head has to do with feel and game style, not so much with perfomance, no modern player (heavy topspin) could play better with an 85-90 racquet than with an 95-100 (all other specs being equal). On the other hand, if you have a classic game style, it's possible that you get not only better feel but also a better performance from a mid head size racquet.
Break Point saved.

Prestige is what is at stake in the title of this tread.
The preference of a smaller head has to do with feel and game style, not so much with perfomance, no modern player (heavy topspin) could play better with an 85-90 racquet than with an 95-100 (all other specs being equal). On the other hand, if you have a classic game style, it's possible that you get not only better feel but also a better performance from a mid head size racquet.
Break Point saved.

Click to expand...

That's exactly it. Not everyone plays the "modern game". Plenty of recreational players out there do not. Heck, even that WTA pro Hsieh beat Robson in the final of the WTA tournament in Guangzhou last week by hitting slice forehands. :shock:

BTW, guys like Borg and Vilas were hitting with plenty of topspin with their 65 sq. in. racquets and super dense 18x20 string patterns back in the 1970's. Sampras also generated more spin on his serves than most other pros with his 85 sq. in. racquet back in the 1990's.

I believe smaller heads are probably better for rec players, especially low level rec players for the following reasons:

1. Our shots tend to be lower velocity so any "sweet spot" advantage of larger frames doesn't matter much

2. Our games are won with consistency and placement rather than power and smaller heads support that objective better

3. Depth control is difficult for noobs made even more difficult for powerful, larger head frames...small, lower power frames make it easier to comtrol depth.

To control the power of larger heads you need to have great timing and precision in your strokes since any error gets amplified. Pros have that, we rec players don't.

The problem? Nadal and his likes hit amazing spinny shots with their 100" heads and the industry wants to market similar frames to adoring fans eager to buy "Nadal's" frame.

Recently I did a demo for my boys to teach them the importance of placement vs power as a new player. Using an AG 4D 100 and 4D 200 I played with them with my arms and hands down at my sides. We hit balls back and forth in a rally with my hands essentially tied to my sides. Even with these low powered frames I could hit the ball to the opposite baseline with ease. Even low powered modern frames provide enough power that with a flick of the wrist and a little spin of the body "no armed man" can knock a shot to the opposite fence.

Meanwhile, at low-mid level men's rec tennis, you have guys trying to smash the ball with their Nadal-wannabe-frames far beyond their skill resulting in tons of UEs.

Imo smaller heads is not about being elite. Quite the opposite. It's a recognition that I can't consistently hit amazingly hard top spin shots off any ball like Nadal et al. I can do so off a floater but otherwise I need to focus on placement rather than power and smaller heads are far superior to larger heads in that department.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is an amazingly well-thought-out reply. I completely agree with this assessment. I completely agree that the pros can control the extra power of the larger frames because they play every day. Most recreational players can't really handle the extra power well enough to take advantage of the larger headsize. They "manage" with the larger frames, but it's difficult.

It's not about seeming "elite". But it's about working with the tools that make your game better. I've tried larger frames and just can't get the feel of them. I constantly hit the ball long while thinking that I hit it perfectly. On reaction shots, I always end up with an unstable shot because while the stringbed is larger, the frame's stability isn't up to the task.

Serves are a no-brainer -- the smaller frames can hit better flat serves, no question about it. On second serves, spinny serves work better with larger frames, so that's a negative against smaller frames. But most smaller frames can still hit adequate spin on serves, so it's a matter of learning, practice, and technique. Most players in the sub-5.0 level need more control, not more power. Smaller frames deliver that. Smaller frames are usually also typically heavier, so they're better for your arm. They're also more stable on serve returns and volleys.

All in all, it just depends on what works better for each player. For me, I enjoy the feel, control, and stability of smaller frames. I've tried larger ones, but they just don't work for me. I figure that's how most players feel when they prefer smaller frames. It's not about wanting to be 'elite', but it's about wanting to play better.

Prestige is what is at stake in the title of this tread.
The preference of a smaller head has to do with feel and game style, not so much with perfomance, no modern player (heavy topspin) could play better with an 85-90 racquet than with an 95-100 (all other specs being equal). On the other hand, if you have a classic game style, it's possible that you get not only better feel but also a better performance from a mid head size racquet.
Break Point saved.

Click to expand...

I would love to play against someone who plays the modern game. As is, I've never seen topspin come at me. I've never seen a kick serve. Never seen a serve jump over my head. I've only seen extreme underspin. At the San Francisco Open, there were two guys that put noticable topspin. Everyone else hit flat.

What I see a lot of is people using AeroPro strung with polyester hitting flat.

I suspect it's because the majority of this forum consists of an older demographic of players, whose technique doesn't allow them to consistently control power with spin. In this case, the smaller headsizes probably are better. But for modern strokes and younger players who can, the 100 crowd have the advantage of more power, easily controlled with spin. Just my opinion.

I suspect it's because the majority of this forum consists of an older demographic of players, whose technique doesn't allow them to consistently control power with spin. In this case, the smaller headsizes probably are better. But for modern strokes and younger players who can, the 100 crowd have the advantage of more power, easily controlled with spin. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree somewhat with this. Fact is, most of the "older demographic" of players tend to use super-huge head sizes, in the 100+ range, with tons of power.

True, the younger crowd is definitely playing with the 98-100 sq. in. frame sizes nowadays, while the 35-55 year-olds mostly grew up with smaller head sizes. But I don't consider either of them an advantage. However, the modern game with heavy topspin is definitely more suited to larger frames and poly strings. The younger crowd has an easier time with this, as they are more athletic and flexible.

Interestingly, the DOUBLES game is quite the opposite. You'll notice that mostly all of the higher-ranked pro players are older (30+) and many use 93-95 sq. in. frames. Doubles isn't necessarily a game that benefits from heavy topspin and loopy, consistent shotmaking. So there is still room for slightly smaller headsizes.

I play doubles almost exclusively these days and I don't see any advantage of a larger headsize over a smaller one at the level I play (NTRP 4.5). Even in singles I don't see any difference between players using 100 sq. in. frames and 90 sq. in. frames. It's just that there are so FEW 90 sq. in. frames available on the market that the majority of players tend to use larger headsizes.

Plus, I think that people are lulled into a false sense of "enhanced performance" of larger frames by retailers that claim "bigger is better". People probably figure larger headsizes are better because there is more room for error. But they don't realize that off-center shots are practically worthless anyway due to the lack of stability in the larger frames.

I have to disagree somewhat with this. Fact is, most of the "older demographic" of players tend to use super-huge head sizes, in the 100+ range, with tons of power.

True, the younger crowd is definitely playing with the 98-100 sq. in. frame sizes nowadays, while the 35-55 year-olds mostly grew up with smaller head sizes. But I don't consider either of them an advantage. However, the modern game with heavy topspin is definitely more suited to larger frames and poly strings. The younger crowd has an easier time with this, as they are more athletic and flexible.

Interestingly, the DOUBLES game is quite the opposite. You'll notice that mostly all of the higher-ranked pro players are older (30+) and many use 93-95 sq. in. frames. Doubles isn't necessarily a game that benefits from heavy topspin and loopy, consistent shotmaking. So there is still room for slightly smaller headsizes.

I play doubles almost exclusively these days and I don't see any advantage of a larger headsize over a smaller one at the level I play (NTRP 4.5). Even in singles I don't see any difference between players using 100 sq. in. frames and 90 sq. in. frames. It's just that there are so FEW 90 sq. in. frames available on the market that the majority of players tend to use larger headsizes.

Plus, I think that people are lulled into a false sense of "enhanced performance" of larger frames by retailers that claim "bigger is better". People probably figure larger headsizes are better because there is more room for error. But they don't realize that off-center shots are practically worthless anyway due to the lack of stability in the larger frames.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually agree with you, especially re the doubles stuff. But we're talking about people on THIS forum. I reckon the 3.0 older crowd that use the 100 plusses generally don't post here. Which is why the mids have such "prestige" in these forums, as the OP states.

I suspect it's because the majority of this forum consists of an older demographic of players, whose technique doesn't allow them to consistently control power with spin. In this case, the smaller headsizes probably are better. But for modern strokes and younger players who can, the 100 crowd have the advantage of more power, easily controlled with spin. Just my opinion.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's age-related but rather level-related. I would infer players liking the mids are 4.5 to 5.5s (the vast majority anyways). However, many 4.5s and above are using or prefers the Barbies (AeroPros or PureDrives; not so much with Storms though...).

I don't think it's age-related but rather level-related. I would infer players liking the mids are 4.5 to 5.5s (the vast majority anyways). However, many 4.5s and above too are using Barbies (AeroPros or PureDrives; not so much with Storms though...).

Click to expand...

You don't think it's the old-school strokes that are more suited to the mids? By your argument, I would have thought more pros would be using mids if that were the case.

Yes, you did. That's got nothing to do with age though.
I guess I just reckon people with older style strokes prefer mids, which is usually related to age, not level.
But others have made the point that many older players use 100 plus, head heavy, light monsters which is also true. I just would have thought if preference for mids correlated more with NTRP than age (as you say), then there'd be more pros playing with mids than midpluses.

Yes, you did. That's got nothing to do with age though.
I guess I just reckon people with older style strokes prefer mids, which is usually related to age, not level.
But others have made the point that many older players use 100 plus, head heavy, light monsters which is also true. I just would have thought if preference for mids correlated more with NTRP than age (as you say), then there'd be more pros playing with mids than midpluses.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be prudent of me to talk about pros since I am not one. But evidently, pros by far are wielding midpluses.

I would love to play against someone who plays the modern game. As is, I've never seen topspin come at me. I've never seen a kick serve. Never seen a serve jump over my head. I've only seen extreme underspin. At the San Francisco Open, there were two guys that put noticable topspin. Everyone else hit flat.

What I see a lot of is people using AeroPro strung with polyester hitting flat.

Click to expand...

That's not the case where I live/play, I play a power top spin game (not consider myself an open level player), I break strings (black code 1.30) each three sets. I've lost to some proficient flat hitters, but chances are they won't be able to handle the weight of my ball, what I happen to prefer are dense string patterns sticks, 16x19 are too lively to me, and because of my full western forerhand grip I hit with top spin even with the cover on

That's exactly it. Not everyone plays the "modern game". Plenty of recreational players out there do not. Heck, even that WTA pro Hsieh beat Robson in the final of the WTA tournament in Guangzhou last week by hitting slice forehands. :shock:

BTW, guys like Borg and Vilas were hitting with plenty of topspin with their 65 sq. in. racquets and super dense 18x20 string patterns back in the 1970's. Sampras also generated more spin on his serves than most other pros with his 85 sq. in. racquet back in the 1990's.

Click to expand...

It's true, although Borg and Vilas did so with slower swing speeds, and supreme technique.

It's true, although Borg and Vilas did so with slower swing speeds, and supreme technique.

Click to expand...

It's much harder to swing 14 oz.+ wood racquets as fast as the 11 oz. modern racquets of today. Borg and Vilas also generated all that topspin without the use of poly strings and with incredibly dense stringbeds (if you can imagine how dense an 18x20 pattern is in a tiny 65 sq. in. head). :shock:

It's much harder to swing 14 oz.+ wood racquets as fast as the 11 oz. modern racquets of today. Borg and Vilas also generated all that topspin without the use of poly strings and with incredibly dense stringbeds (if you can imagine how dense an 18x20 pattern is in a tiny 65 sq. in. head). :shock:

Click to expand...

So you are saying that with more of a modern racquet and string, they would produce far heavier top spin, ergo they would have played better

That's not the case where I live/play, I play a power top spin game (not consider myself an open level player), I break strings (black code 1.30) each three sets. I've lost to some proficient flat hitters, but chances are they won't be able to handle the weight of my ball, what I happen to prefer are dense string patterns sticks, 16x19 are too lively to me, and because of my full western forerhand grip I hit with top spin even with the cover on

Every guy seems to have a huge forehand. Massive spin. Puts Tsonga to shame. No one seems to be honest and realistic,...."I hit like a girl, I'm not gonna lie. Super flat, and I even put my hips into it...."

Even in the videos of their match play, high school girls hit harder than they do. Definately serve better.

The boys and girls (10 to 16 year olds) today hitting with a Roddick-like forehand can impart top spins (h-u-g-e) that would put to shame most adults with their Barbies at hand. Can they do the same with a much smaller headed racquet, I don't know, I'll have to see it to believe it. On the otherhand, boys and girls switching to Dunley (Dunlop) Biomemetics while still swinging with the same ''biceps curl'' forehand aren't revving it quite like the Barbies. Why is that? Hmmm...it doesn't make me wonder.

The boys and girls (10 to 16 year olds) today hitting with a Roddick-like forehand can impart top spins (h-u-g-e) that would put to shame most adults with their Barbies at hand. Can they do the same with a much smaller headed racquet, I don't know, I'll have to see it to believe it. On the otherhand, boys and girls switching to Dunley (Dunlop) Biomemetics while still swinging with the same ''biceps curl'' forehand aren't revving it quite like the Barbies. Why is that? Hmmm...it doesn't make me wonder.

Click to expand...

Youngsters have been launching forehands hard and long since the beginning of time. Nothing new. Nothing's changed since the advent of the Pure Drive.

I had monster shots when I was 15, and all I had was a PS 6.1 95 Classic. Of course, we didn't have polyester strings back then so keeping it in the court was a bit hard.

Its more fun to play with a small head because the lack of power allows me to wack the ball with out having to worry about supplying the right amount of topspin. I'd probably play my best with a midplus, but it requires so much more concentration when i'm out there and just wanna hurt the ball. I think its a personal thing, because i just want to play better if i'm using a mid because it makes me feel federesque

Youngsters have been launching forehands hard and long since the beginning of time. Nothing new. Nothing's changed since the advent of the Pure Drive.

I had monster shots when I was 15, and all I had was a PS 6.1 95 Classic. Of course, we didn't have polyester strings back then so keeping it in the court was a bit hard.

Click to expand...

Well exactly, nothing's changed since the intro of Pure Drives!:wink:

Are we suppose to conclude that Barbie's elliptically-shaped 100s (100s--specific) nailed it? I doubt even with a downsized elliptical head, say down to 85 or 90, Barbies aren't gonna produce those monstrous spins. Just compare their 98s.

Anyways, as you say you're launching spinning forehands since you were 15, are you still doing the same or hitting it flatter these days?

From time to time I do the ''biceps curl'' forehand but I really like to whack it flatly most of the time.

Are we suppose to conclude that Barbie's elliptically-shaped 100s (100s--specific) nailed it? I doubt even with a downsized elliptical head, say down to 85 or 90, Barbies aren't gonna produce those monstrous spins. Just compare their 98s.

Anyways, as you say you're launching spinning forehands since you were 15, are you still doing the same or hitting it flatter these days?

From time to time I do the ''biceps curl'' forehand but I really like to whack it flatly most of the time.

Click to expand...

I didn't have a monster topspin forehand. I had a monster forehand I couldn't control: won as many points as I lost. That was the 6.1 95 back in the late 90's. Today, I hit with more than ample topspin (ball visibly jumps on landing) but I'm trying to add flat shots to my arsenal. Flat is so much more consistent, and it takes less effort.

The most spin I've ever gotten on groundies came from the KPS88. My lighter frames like the Prestige Pro, EXO3 Graphite 93, and BLX 6.1 95 produced medium spin. This leads me to believe spin comes from mass, not the lack there of.

So you are saying that with more of a modern racquet and string, they would produce far heavier top spin, ergo they would have played better

Click to expand...

We will never know. Since they grew up using wood racquets, all of their stroke mechanics were geared for small, heavy wood racquets. Who knows how they would have adapted to huge, light modern racquets.

I play with both a 93" Prince and a 100" Wilson Tweener. I play the same with each, they just feel different.

I want to transition a 90" next and maybe also get the PS85 to hit with occasionally as that's what Federer and Sampras have used. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. I also want to try a Yonex mid.

I have played 95-98 for last 10 years. Started with wood, played OS 110 when they came out, tried wide 100, and went back to thin beam 95-98 for last 10 years.

A 93 inch racket can have a big sweetspot if it has sufficient Swingweight and Twistweight - note the stock blx 90 has a bigger power zone than the stock APDGT - Fed's vs Rafa's due to better swingweight on blx 90.

If you have not tried a 93, then try one. You get the feeling that the ball goes exactly where you told it to go. Very clean and very crisp. You do not get this feeling from a wider body, open string pattern, 100" racket.

I came into tennis in the early 1970's playing with standard size wood or aluminum rackets. Played college tennis from 1976-1980, and was starting to face the Prince rackets then. Went to larger head sizes in the early 1980's. Played with all sizes over the years. Generally felt like a 98 thin beam players frame was the best of all worlds for me. Now am 54 and still a strong player, but not as fast as the top young guys. My son is a 17 year old tournament player, other guys I hit with are generally 20's with the huge power modern game. I can play well and hit consistant with one of the 85-90 frames, but can't generate the power to win points quickly with them. If I was playing other guys my age, I would be fine with that set-up. But to be competitve against the modern game, and counter my lack of ability to run down huge shots, I've got to have a big game as well, and the ability to hit huge shots. So I'm playing a 102 thin beam frame with alot of weight added. I get more power and can hit winners against these guys. If I dig out a thin beam 90 frame, I can hit very well with it, but can't win a point quickly from the baseline. Consistancy does not help much if you opponent hits an outright winner on the 3rd or 4th shot. But I agree, most anyone can play well with any size frame, just have to work with it and fine tune the string and tension.